Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real-Time Recovery

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:V/WP:NOR; contained only unsourced content. Sandstein 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real-Time Recovery

Is this Spam or a valid article ? Been trying to see if it's been copied from somewhere! thisisace 23:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CorenSearchBot never tagged this article for copyvio, and a Google search on the entire first paragraph lists this article as the only suitable result. Furthermore, at least in its current version, it does not point to a single firm offering this kind of service, so that rules out advertizing as well. --Blanchardb 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:V. No citations to reliable sources. -- Satori Son 00:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced spammishness. Doczilla 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Captain panda 03:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mark as unreferenced Cander0000 04:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NPOV and has no sources. It also is a mess, is a stub and is in need of cleanup. Also violates WP:NOR and WP:V.Thundermaster367 14:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are not good deletion rationales, as these can be fixed. The question is, can somebody put this article in a position in which it passes WP:V? I think it might be possible, though I may be wrong. No more bongos 20:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.